Now you have me reminiscing about my 1st yr in college. My ex-KKK "white" college dormitory roommate from freshman year hated my guts due to my "black" skin, NOT affirmative action.

Well, I won't disagree with you that ethnic groups had been at each others' throats prior to AA. But I'm inclined to believe that AA has increased the rancor, because, as Sowell had pointed out in "Inside American Education," after AA policies have been implemented, crimes attributable to racial conflict have begun appearing in university towns located in areas where there had never been a history of racial conflict. This evidence isn't conclusive, but it does support the idea.

I can't provide you bullet-proof evidence that AA is increasing racial disharmony, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.

I don't think citing "institutionalized racism" provides much justification for AA policies, either, because, as I've previously stated, such alleged "racism" can't be measured, much less proven. If policymakers can't measure the extent of alleged "institutionalized racism" (versus, say, non-institutionalized racism), much less the extent of AA's effects upon it, then it doesn't provide much of a support for AA policies.

And I'm sorry to hear that you had to live with a bigot for a year. My condolences.

Now you have me reminiscing about my 1st yr in college. My ex-KKK "white" college dormitory roommate from freshman year hated my guts due to my "black" skin, NOT affirmative action.

Well, I won't disagree with you that ethnic groups had been at each others' throats prior to AA. But I'm inclined to believe that AA has increased the rancor, because, as Sowell had pointed out in "Inside American Education," after AA policies have been implemented, crimes attributable to racial conflict have begun appearing in university towns located in areas where there had never been a history of racial conflict. This evidence isn't conclusive, but it does support the idea.

I can't provide you bullet-proof evidence that AA is increasing racial disharmony, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.

I don't think citing "institutionalized racism" provides much justification for AA policies, either, because, as I've previously stated, such alleged "racism" can't be measured, much less proven. If policymakers can't measure the extent of alleged "institutionalized racism" (versus, say, non-institutionalized racism), much less the extent of AA's effects upon it, then it doesn't provide much of a support for AA policies.

And I'm sorry to hear that you had to live with a bigot for a year. My condolences.

Correlation DOES NOT indicate CAUSATION. Yes, an increase in racial conflict may correlate with the implementation of AA policies, but one must eliminate all other possible causal variables before arriving at the conclusion presented above. Plainly speaking, Sowell's argument lacks cogency! He might be able to sell that s**t to an uneducated redneck from Alabama, a fellow self-loathing black person, a selfish educated bigot, etc. But I know better.

Living with a white ex-KKK member wasn't so bad. I was STRONG, and we eventually had a stand-off LOL . He couldn't take the "heat in the kitchen," so he moved out, leaving the room to me for all of spring quarter. I was in HEAVEN!

I'm inclined to believe that AA has increased the rancor, because, as Sowell had pointed out in "Inside American Education," after AA policies have been implemented, crimes attributable to racial conflict have begun appearing in university towns located in areas where there had never been a history of racial conflict.

Before James Meredith appeared in Oxford, the whites there never rioted or burned down the city. But when one Black guy showed up, then whamo, pandamonium. Clearly integration caused racial conflict.

You realize how perverse Sowell's argument is when it's white people attacking black people who dare to venture it what used to be fairly exclusively white territory. Whatever fake statistics he's going to quote will reflect the legal system's violence towards black men in reporting and prosecution. Sure, AA will cause increased racial conflict, but it's likely going to be conflict from the group that is losing some power manifested towards the group that is trying to gain some equality. That's why struggles for equality are hard and a desire to avoid all conflict is a desire to never disrupt the status quo.

Sure, AA will cause increased racial conflict, but it's likely going to be conflict from the group that is losing some power manifested towards the group that is trying to gain some equality. That's why struggles for equality are hard and a desire to avoid all conflict is a desire to never disrupt the status quo.

...AND it is exactly because of the status quo we have need affirmative action.

Correlation DOES NOT indicate CAUSATION. Yes, an increase in racial conflict may correlate with the implementation of AA policies, but one must eliminate all other possible causal variables before arriving at the conclusion presented above. Plainly speaking, Sowell's argument lacks cogency! He might be able to sell that s**t to an uneducated redneck from Alabama, a fellow self-loathing black person, a selfish educated bigot, etc. But I know better.

I'm quite aware that Correlation != Causation. The sudden emergence of racial acrimony after AA policies have been implemented in one area doesn't allow one to definitively conclude that the policies were the cause of the acrimony. Like you mentioned, the greater numbers of people in the AA-favored groups could account for this increase in conflict. This is definitely another plausible explanation for this sequence of events, and I wouldn't be honest if I didn't take it as a possibility.

However, if you take into consideration that similar consequences have occurred when AA has been implemented in other cultures around the world, and in many of these cultures, members of the favored group had been present in the AA-implemented institution prior to the implementation of AA without sparking racial acrimony, then it's more likely that AA is the cause than the presence of members of the favored-group is the cause.

I can't really give you conclusive proof, but I thought this argument would at least make plausible sense. I was pretty convinced by it when I've also taken into consideration other things I've read about the topic of AA, but you may not be.

There was more to Sowell's argument against AA in that book, but because I only read up to that part (since I was browing the book preview on amazon.com, rather than a physical copy of the book), I can't tell you what more there is.

Living with a white ex-KKK member wasn't so bad. I was STRONG, and we eventually had a stand-off LOL . He couldn't take the "heat in the kitchen," so he moved out, leaving the room to me for all of spring quarter. I was in HEAVEN!

I'm surprised that the administration of your school didn't step in. Honestly, that would probably be one of the most awkward living arrangements you could force two people into.

On a side note, even though racial bigotry is largely a social taboo in the United States, it's still very prevalent in Asia. Several Singaporean managers in my company have mentioned that they thought Black people were more related to animals than non-Blacks, citing, as evidence, the prevalence of Black people in professional sports (as to these managers, more "animal" persons would have greater physical attributes than less "animal" persons) and lack of intelligent Black people.

What's really surprising is that these managers are in their mid-30s, and by no means ignorant of the world, although they may be ignorant of the achievements of Black people.

My girlfriend mentions that this set of beliefs is also somewhat prevalent amongst the Mainland Chinese. And, from an article I read about what Hines Ward had to endure as a Blasian who had grown up amongst Koreans in the United States, similar beliefs may be found amongst the Koreans.

You realize how perverse Sowell's argument is when it's white people attacking black people who dare to venture it what used to be fairly exclusively white territory. Whatever fake statistics he's going to quote will reflect the legal system's violence towards black men in reporting and prosecution. Sure, AA will cause increased racial conflict, but it's likely going to be conflict from the group that is losing some power manifested towards the group that is trying to gain some equality. That's why struggles for equality are hard and a desire to avoid all conflict is a desire to never disrupt the status quo.

The problem with AA is precisely that it turns processes (school admissions, government hirings, government contracts) that had previously been not-necessarily influenced by political considerations into processes that definitely are influenced by political considerations. Increasing how much political considerations influence these processes provides people applying to these processes a stronger incentive to pursue political influence, which may distract from applicants pursuing the knowledge or skills that would normally allow them to better compete for positions in the absence of these considerations. And greater knowledge and skills of applicants would improve how much the applicants could learn from, or contribute to, the institution, while political influence does no such thing.

Furthermore, if you define the rule of law as applying an equal set of standards to all people under its rule, then since AA requires the application of different standards to different groups of people, AA is in conflict with the principle of the rule of law.

Since part of the appeal of the rule of law is that its enforcement does not favor particular groups (that is, justice is blind), and this appeal is part of the reason why people follow the rule of law without the need for stronger measures of enforcement, then if AA policies that conflict with the rule of law are implemented, the subsequent reduction in the appeal of the principle may require stronger enforcement to yield the same level of civil peace. Stronger enforcement requires a judiciary that more often encroaches on personal matters, which, in turn, reduces the amount of freedom of the people in the society of its jurisdiction.

On a side note, I don't think crime statistics are necessarily inaccurate. More Black people being arrested and prosecuted isn't necessarily because the police or prosecutors are selectively targeting Blacks; it may be because Black people are committing more crimes. Heather McDonald made this argument in one of her books (which I admit I haven't read). Both factors may play a role in the disproportionate presence of Blacks in reported crime statistics, so I think to come up with anything more than a tentative opinion on how much more one factor plays in the ex post results than the other, one must examine both possibilities, which I doubt you have done (of course, I could be wrong with this doubt).

(FYI, I myself haven't come up with anything more than a tentative opinion on this matter, so please sheath your rhetorical sword.)

You realize how perverse Sowell's argument is when it's white people attacking black people who dare to venture it what used to be fairly exclusively white territory. Whatever fake statistics he's going to quote will reflect the legal system's violence towards black men in reporting and prosecution. Sure, AA will cause increased racial conflict, but it's likely going to be conflict from the group that is losing some power manifested towards the group that is trying to gain some equality. That's why struggles for equality are hard and a desire to avoid all conflict is a desire to never disrupt the status quo.

The problem with AA is precisely that it turns processes (school admissions, government hirings, government contracts) that had previously been not-necessarily influenced by political considerations into processes that definitely are influenced by political considerations. Increasing how much political considerations influence these processes provides people applying to these processes a stronger incentive to pursue political influence, which may distract from applicants pursuing the knowledge or skills that would normally allow them to better compete for positions in the absence of these considerations. And greater knowledge and skills of applicants would improve how much the applicants could learn from, or contribute to, the institution, while political influence does no such thing.

Furthermore, if you define the rule of law as applying an equal set of standards to all people under its rule, then since AA requires the application of different standards to different groups of people, AA is in conflict with the principle of the rule of law.

Since part of the appeal of the rule of law is that its enforcement does not favor particular groups (that is, justice is blind), and this appeal is part of the reason why people follow the rule of law without the need for stronger measures of enforcement, then if AA policies that conflict with the rule of law are implemented, the subsequent reduction in the appeal of the principle may require stronger enforcement to yield the same level of civil peace. Stronger enforcement requires a judiciary that more often encroaches on personal matters, which, in turn, reduces the amount of freedom of the people in the society of its jurisdiction.

On a side note, I don't think crime statistics are necessarily inaccurate. More Black people being arrested and prosecuted isn't necessarily because the police or prosecutors are selectively targeting Blacks; it may be because Black people are committing more crimes. Heather McDonald made this argument in one of her books (which I admit I haven't read). Both factors may play a role in the disproportionate presence of Blacks in reported crime statistics, so I think to come up with anything more than a tentative opinion on how much more one factor plays in the ex post results than the other, one must examine both possibilities, which I doubt you have done (of course, I could be wrong with this doubt).

(FYI, I myself haven't come up with anything more than a tentative opinion on this matter, so please sheath your rhetorical sword.)

I have come to the conclusion that PsuedoNym uses the rope-a-dope method of arguing. Guess what, he won. Simply put, my young Asian brother or sister is turning this debate into a battle of endurance. I am recusing myself with aplomb. My head is bloody but unbowed.